DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume I I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume I I Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume I I April 2016 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | Midwest Region | Bloomington, MN This page intentionally left blank. MIDWEST WIND ENERGY MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT—VOLUME II U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest Region Bloomington, MN April 2016 This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A. Special Status Animals .................................................................................................................. A-1 Appendix B. Special Status Plants ..................................................................................................................... B-1 Appendix C. Invasive Plants ................................................................................................................................. C-1 Appendix D. Wind Turbine Noise Screening Example ................................................................................ D-1 Appendix E. Recommended Mitigation Measures for Visual Resources ................................................ E-1 Appendix F. Example Programmatic Agreement for Cultural Resources .............................................. F-1 Appendix G. Cumulative Impacts Analysis ..................................................................................................... G-1 Appendix H. NEPA Consistency Evaluation .................................................................................................... H-1 Appendix I. Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan ...................................... I-1 List of Tables Table A-1. Non-federally Listed State Special Status Animal Species ............................................................ A-1 Table B-1. Non-federally Listed State Special Status Plant Species ................................................................ B-1 Table C-1. Invasive Plants in the Study Area ............................................................................................................ C-1 Table D-1. WTG Noise Impact Results ........................................................................................................................ D-1 Table D-2. Population Data, Ambient Noise Data, and Impact Calculations ............................................... D-3 Table G-1. Midwest Region at a Glance ....................................................................................................................... G-3 Table G-2. Illinois ................................................................................................................................................................. G-4 Table G-3. Indiana ............................................................................................................................................................... G-5 Table G-4. Iowa ..................................................................................................................................................................... G-7 Table G-5. Michigan ............................................................................................................................................................ G-8 Table G-6. Minnesota ...................................................................................................................................................... G-10 Table G-7. Missouri .......................................................................................................................................................... G-11 Table G-8. Ohio .................................................................................................................................................................. G-12 Table G-9. Wisconsin ....................................................................................................................................................... G-13 Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species HCP EIS Draft EIS April 2016 i U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species HCP EIS Draft EIS April 2016 ii Appendix A. Special Status Animals This page intentionally left blank. Table A-1. Non-federally Listed State Special Status Animal Species Indiana* Iowa Michigan Minnesota Missouri* Ohio Wisconsin Habitat Class Common Name Scientific Name Illinois Forest Amphibians Jefferson salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum ST Marbled salamander Ambystoma opacum SE Silvery Salamander Ambystoma platineum SE Mole Salamander Ambystoma talpoideum SE Green salamander Aneides aeneus SE SE Birds Long-eared owl Asio otis ST ST Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus SE ST ST Chuck-will’s-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis ST Black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus ST Spruce grouse Dendragapus canadensis ST Acadian flycatcher Empidonax virescens ST Merlin Falco columbarius ST Worm-eating warbler Helmitheros vermivorum SE Mississippi kite Ictinia mississippiensis ST Swainson's warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii SE SE Kentucky warbler Oporornis formosus ST Louisiana waterthrush Seiurus motacilla ST Cerulean warbler Setophaga cerulea ST SE ST ST Hooded warbler Setophaga citrina ST Yellow-throated warbler Setophaga dominica ST SE Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii SE Golden-winged warbler Vermivora chrysoptera SE Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii ST Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species HCP EIS Draft EIS April 2016 A-1 Appendix A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Status Animals Indiana* Iowa Michigan Minnesota Missouri* Ohio Wisconsin Habitat Class Common Name Scientific Name Illinois Insects Six-banded longhorn beetle Dryobius sexnotatus ST Dukes’ skipper Euphyes dukesi ST None Lithophane semiusta SE Northern blue butterfly Lycaeides idas SE SE None Ufeus plicatus SE None Ufeus satyricus SE Mammals Red-backed vole Clethrionomys gapperi SE Cougar Felis concolor SE American marten Martes americana SE Eastern wood rat Neotoma floridana SE Allegheny woodrat Neotoma magister SE SE Smoky shrew Sorex fumeus ST Spotted skunk Spilogale putorius SE ST Swamp rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus SE Black bear Ursus americanus SE Evening bat Nycticeius humeralis SE ST ST Reptiles Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix SE Western worm snake Carphophis amoenus vermis ST Scarletsnake Cemophora coccinea SE Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus ST SE ST SE Wood turtle Glyptemys insculpta SE ST ST Coachwhip Masticophis flagellum SE Western ratsnake Pantherophis obsoletus ST Queen snake Regina septemvittata SE Southeastern crowned snake Tantilla coronata SE Flathead snake Tantilla gracilis ST Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species HCP EIS Draft EIS April 2016 A-2 Appendix A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Status Animals Indiana* Iowa Michigan Minnesota Missouri* Ohio Wisconsin Habitat Class Common Name Scientific Name Illinois Ornate box turtle Terrapene ornata ST SE ST SE Grassland Amphibians Eastern spadefoot Scaphiopus holbrookii SE Arachnids Species of jumping spider Tutelina formicaria ST Birds Baird's sparrow Ammodramus bairdii SE Henslow’s sparrow Ammodramus henslowii SE ST SE SE ST Short-eared owl Asio flammeus SE SE SE SE Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia SE Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda SE SE SE ST Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis SE Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni SE Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus SE Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus SE Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SE SE SE SE SE Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus SE SE SE Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SE SE SE SE SE Migrant loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus migrans SE Prairie warbler Setophaga discolor SE Greater prairie-chicken Tympanuchus cupido SE SE ST Barn owl Tyto alba ST SE SE SE ST Insects Red-tailed or Red-veined prairie Aflexia rubranura ST SE leafhopper Leafhopper Athysanella incongrua SE A leafhopper Attenuipyga vanduzeei SE Frosted elfin Callophrys irus SE Three-staff underwing Catocala amestris SE Ringlet Coenonympha tullia SE Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species HCP EIS Draft EIS April 2016 A-3 Appendix A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Status Animals Indiana* Iowa Michigan Minnesota Missouri* Ohio Wisconsin Habitat Class Common Name Scientific Name Illinois Unexpected cycnia Cycnia inopinatus SE Persius dusky wing Erynnis persius ST SE SE Pink-streak Faronta rubripennis ST An issid planthopper Fitchiella robertsoni ST River leafhopper Flexamia huroni ST Silvery blue Glaucopsyche lygdamus ST Assiniboia skipper Hesperia assiniboia SE Cobweb skipper Hesperia metea SE Ottoe skipper Hesperia ottoe SE ST SE SE Uncas skipper Hesperia uncas SE Henry’s elfin Incisalia henrici ST Frosted elfin Incisalia irus ST ST Hoary elfin Incisalia polios SE Garita skipper Oarisma garita ST Uhler's arctic Oeneis uhleri varuna SE Silphium borer moth Papaipema silphii ST SE SE Prairie leafhopper Polyamia dilata ST Byssus skipper Problema byssus ST None Radotanypus florens ST Phlox moth Schinia indiana SE SE Leadplant moth Schinia lucens SE Mammals Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus SE Prairie vole Microtus ochrogaster SE Plains pocket mouse Perognathus flavescens SE Eastern harvest mouse Reithrodontomys humulis ST Franklin’s ground squirrel Spermophilus franklinii ST SE Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species HCP EIS Draft EIS April 2016 A-4 Appendix A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Status Animals Indiana* Iowa Michigan Minnesota Missouri* Ohio Wisconsin Habitat Class Common Name Scientific Name Illinois Plains spotted
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Big Creek Lepidoptera Checklist
    Big Creek Lepidoptera Checklist Prepared by J.A. Powell, Essig Museum of Entomology, UC Berkeley. For a description of the Big Creek Lepidoptera Survey, see Powell, J.A. Big Creek Reserve Lepidoptera Survey: Recovery of Populations after the 1985 Rat Creek Fire. In Views of a Coastal Wilderness: 20 Years of Research at Big Creek Reserve. (copies available at the reserve). family genus species subspecies author Acrolepiidae Acrolepiopsis californica Gaedicke Adelidae Adela flammeusella Chambers Adelidae Adela punctiferella Walsingham Adelidae Adela septentrionella Walsingham Adelidae Adela trigrapha Zeller Alucitidae Alucita hexadactyla Linnaeus Arctiidae Apantesis ornata (Packard) Arctiidae Apantesis proxima (Guerin-Meneville) Arctiidae Arachnis picta Packard Arctiidae Cisthene deserta (Felder) Arctiidae Cisthene faustinula (Boisduval) Arctiidae Cisthene liberomacula (Dyar) Arctiidae Gnophaela latipennis (Boisduval) Arctiidae Hemihyalea edwardsii (Packard) Arctiidae Lophocampa maculata Harris Arctiidae Lycomorpha grotei (Packard) Arctiidae Spilosoma vagans (Boisduval) Arctiidae Spilosoma vestalis Packard Argyresthiidae Argyresthia cupressella Walsingham Argyresthiidae Argyresthia franciscella Busck Argyresthiidae Argyresthia sp. (gray) Blastobasidae ?genus Blastobasidae Blastobasis ?glandulella (Riley) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.1) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.2) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.3) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.4) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.5) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.6) Blastobasidae Holcocera gigantella (Chambers) Blastobasidae
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Fish Report
    Aquatic Fish Report Acipenser fulvescens Lake St urgeon Class: Actinopterygii Order: Acipenseriformes Family: Acipenseridae Priority Score: 27 out of 100 Population Trend: Unknown Gobal Rank: G3G4 — Vulnerable (uncertain rank) State Rank: S2 — Imperiled in Arkansas Distribution Occurrence Records Ecoregions where the species occurs: Ozark Highlands Boston Mountains Ouachita Mountains Arkansas Valley South Central Plains Mississippi Alluvial Plain Mississippi Valley Loess Plains Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon 362 Aquatic Fish Report Ecobasins Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - Arkansas River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - St. Francis River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - White River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain (Lake Chicot) - Mississippi River Habitats Weight Natural Littoral: - Large Suitable Natural Pool: - Medium - Large Optimal Natural Shoal: - Medium - Large Obligate Problems Faced Threat: Biological alteration Source: Commercial harvest Threat: Biological alteration Source: Exotic species Threat: Biological alteration Source: Incidental take Threat: Habitat destruction Source: Channel alteration Threat: Hydrological alteration Source: Dam Data Gaps/Research Needs Continue to track incidental catches. Conservation Actions Importance Category Restore fish passage in dammed rivers. High Habitat Restoration/Improvement Restrict commercial harvest (Mississippi River High Population Management closed to harvest). Monitoring Strategies Monitor population distribution and abundance in large river faunal surveys in cooperation
    [Show full text]
  • Lamprey, Hagfish
    Agnatha - Lamprey, Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Super Class: Agnatha Hagfish Agnatha are jawless fish. Lampreys and hagfish are in this class. Members of the agnatha class are probably the earliest vertebrates. Scientists have found fossils of agnathan species from the late Cambrian Period that occurred 500 million years ago. Members of this class of fish don't have paired fins or a stomach. Adults and larvae have a notochord. A notochord is a flexible rod-like cord of cells that provides the main support for the body of an organism during its embryonic stage. A notochord is found in all chordates. Most agnathans have a skeleton made of cartilage and seven or more paired gill pockets. They have a light sensitive pineal eye. A pineal eye is a third eye in front of the pineal gland. Fertilization of eggs takes place outside the body. The lamprey looks like an eel, but it has a jawless sucking mouth that it attaches to a fish. It is a parasite and sucks tissue and fluids out of the fish it is attached to. The lamprey's mouth has a ring of cartilage that supports it and rows of horny teeth that it uses to latch on to a fish. Lampreys are found in temperate rivers and coastal seas and can range in size from 5 to 40 inches. Lampreys begin their lives as freshwater larvae. In the larval stage, lamprey usually are found on muddy river and lake bottoms where they filter feed on microorganisms. The larval stage can last as long as seven years! At the end of the larval state, the lamprey changes into an eel- like creature that swims and usually attaches itself to a fish.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fish Habitat Partnership
    A Fish Habitat Partnership Strategic Plan for Fish Habitat Conservation in Midwest Glacial Lakes Engbretson Underwater Photography September 30, 2009 This page intentionally left blank. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 I. BACKGROUND 7 II. VALUES OF GLACIAL LAKES 8 III. OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS TO GLACIAL LAKES 9 IV. AN ECOREGIONAL APPROACH 14 V. MULTIPLE INTERESTS WITH COMMON GOALS 23 VI. INVASIVES SPECIES, CLIMATE CHANGE 23 VII. CHALLENGES 25 VIII. INTERIM OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS 26 IX. INTERIM PRIORITY WATERSHEDS 29 LITERATURE CITED 30 APPENDICES I Steering Committee, Contributing Partners and Working Groups 33 II Fish Habitat Conservation Strategies Grouped By Themes 34 III Species of Greatest Conservation Need By Level III Ecoregions 36 Contact Information: Pat Rivers, Midwest Glacial Lakes Project Manager 1601 Minnesota Drive Brainerd, MN 56401 Telephone 218-327-4306 [email protected] www.midwestglaciallakes.org 3 Executive Summary OUR MISSION The mission of the Midwest Glacial Lakes Partnership is to work together to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance sustainable fish habitats in glacial lakes of the Midwest for the use and enjoyment of current and future generations. Glacial lakes (lakes formed by glacial activity) are a common feature on the midwestern landscape. From small, productive potholes to the large windswept walleye “factories”, glacial lakes are an integral part of the communities within which they are found and taken collectively are a resource of national importance. Despite this value, lakes are commonly treated more as a commodity rather than a natural resource susceptible to degradation. Often viewed apart from the landscape within which they occupy, human activities on land—and in water—have compromised many of these systems.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Land Management Plan
    2009 LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN (Updated Annual Harvest Plan -2014) Itasca County Land Department 1177 LaPrairie Avenue Grand Rapids, MN 55744-3322 218-327-2855 ● Fax: 218-327-4160 LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Itasca County Land Department Acknowledgements This Land Management Plan was produced by Itasca County Land Department employees Garrett Ous, Dave Marshall, Michael Gibbons, Adam Olson, Bob Scheierl, Roger Clark, Kory Cease, Steve Aysta, Tim Stocker, Perry Leone, Wayne Perreault, Blair Carlson, Loren Eide, Bob Rother, Andrew Brown, Del Inkman, Darlene Brown and Meg Muller. Thank you to all the citizens for their sincere input and review during the public involvement process. And thank you to Itasca County Commissioners Lori Dowling, Karen Burthwick, Rusty Eichorn, Catherine McLynn and Mark Mandich for their vision and final approval of this document. Foreword This land management plan is designed for providing vision and direction to guide strategic and operational programs of the Land Department. That vision and direction reflects a long standing connection with local economic, educational and social programs. The Land Department is committed to ensuring that economic benefits and environmental integrity are available to both present and future generations. That will be accomplished through actively managing county land and forests for a balance of benefits to the citizens and for providing them with a sustained supply of quality products and services. The Department will apply quality forestland stewardship practices, employ modern technology and information, and partner with other forest organizations to provide citizens with those quality products and services. ________________________________ Garrett Ous September, 2009 Itasca County Land Commissioner 1177 LaPrairie Avenue Grand Rapids, MN 55744-3322 218-327-2855 ● Fax: 218-327-4160 ICLD - LMP Section i., page 1 of 3 Itasca County Land Department Land Management Plan Table of Contents i.
    [Show full text]
  • The Global Status of Freshwater Fish Age Validation Studies and a Prioritization Framework for Further Research Jonathan J
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Nebraska Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit -- Staff ubP lications Unit 2015 The Global Status of Freshwater Fish Age Validation Studies and a Prioritization Framework for Further Research Jonathan J. Spurgeon University of Nebraska–Lincoln, [email protected] Martin J. Hamel University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Kevin L. Pope U.S. Geological Survey—Nebraska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,, [email protected] Mark A. Pegg University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ncfwrustaff Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Environmental Monitoring Commons, Natural Resource Economics Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Spurgeon, Jonathan J.; Hamel, Martin J.; Pope, Kevin L.; and Pegg, Mark A., "The Global Status of Freshwater Fish Age Validation Studies and a Prioritization Framework for Further Research" (2015). Nebraska Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit -- Staff Publications. 203. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ncfwrustaff/203 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Nebraska Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit -- Staff ubP lications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 23:329–345, 2015 CopyrightO c Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 2330-8249 print / 2330-8257 online DOI: 10.1080/23308249.2015.1068737 The Global Status of Freshwater Fish Age Validation Studies and a Prioritization Framework for Further Research JONATHAN J.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment J Assessment of Existing Paleontologic Data Along with Field Survey Results for the Jonah Field
    Attachment J Assessment of Existing Paleontologic Data Along with Field Survey Results for the Jonah Field June 12, 2007 ABSTRACT This is compilation of a technical analysis of existing paleontological data and a limited, selective paleontological field survey of the geologic bedrock formations that will be impacted on Federal lands by construction associated with energy development in the Jonah Field, Sublette County, Wyoming. The field survey was done on approximately 20% of the field, primarily where good bedrock was exposed or where there were existing, debris piles from recent construction. Some potentially rich areas were inaccessible due to biological restrictions. Heavily vegetated areas were not examined. All locality data are compiled in the separate confidential appendix D. Uinta Paleontological Associates Inc. was contracted to do this work through EnCana Oil & Gas Inc. In addition BP and Ultra Resources are partners in this project as they also have holdings in the Jonah Field. For this project, we reviewed a variety of geologic maps for the area (approximately 47 sections); none of maps have a scale better than 1:100,000. The Wyoming 1:500,000 geology map (Love and Christiansen, 1985) reveals two Eocene geologic formations with four members mapped within or near the Jonah Field (Wasatch – Alkali Creek and Main Body; Green River – Laney and Wilkins Peak members). In addition, Winterfeld’s 1997 paleontology report for the proposed Jonah Field II Project was reviewed carefully. After considerable review of the literature and museum data, it became obvious that the portion of the mapped Alkali Creek Member in the Jonah Field is probably misinterpreted.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of the Systematic Biology of Fossil and Living Bony-Tongue Fishes, Osteoglossomorpha (Actinopterygii: Teleostei)
    Neotropical Ichthyology, 16(3): e180031, 2018 Journal homepage: www.scielo.br/ni DOI: 10.1590/1982-0224-20180031 Published online: 11 October 2018 (ISSN 1982-0224) Copyright © 2018 Sociedade Brasileira de Ictiologia Printed: 30 September 2018 (ISSN 1679-6225) Review article A review of the systematic biology of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes, Osteoglossomorpha (Actinopterygii: Teleostei) Eric J. Hilton1 and Sébastien Lavoué2,3 The bony-tongue fishes, Osteoglossomorpha, have been the focus of a great deal of morphological, systematic, and evolutio- nary study, due in part to their basal position among extant teleostean fishes. This group includes the mooneyes (Hiodontidae), knifefishes (Notopteridae), the abu (Gymnarchidae), elephantfishes (Mormyridae), arawanas and pirarucu (Osteoglossidae), and the African butterfly fish (Pantodontidae). This morphologically heterogeneous group also has a long and diverse fossil record, including taxa from all continents and both freshwater and marine deposits. The phylogenetic relationships among most extant osteoglossomorph families are widely agreed upon. However, there is still much to discover about the systematic biology of these fishes, particularly with regard to the phylogenetic affinities of several fossil taxa, within Mormyridae, and the position of Pantodon. In this paper we review the state of knowledge for osteoglossomorph fishes. We first provide an overview of the diversity of Osteoglossomorpha, and then discuss studies of the phylogeny of Osteoglossomorpha from both morphological and molecular perspectives, as well as biogeographic analyses of the group. Finally, we offer our perspectives on future needs for research on the systematic biology of Osteoglossomorpha. Keywords: Biogeography, Osteoglossidae, Paleontology, Phylogeny, Taxonomy. Os peixes da Superordem Osteoglossomorpha têm sido foco de inúmeros estudos sobre a morfologia, sistemática e evo- lução, particularmente devido à sua posição basal dentre os peixes teleósteos.
    [Show full text]
  • MOTHS and BUTTERFLIES LEPIDOPTERA DISTRIBUTION DATA SOURCES (LEPIDOPTERA) * Detailed Distributional Information Has Been J.D
    MOTHS AND BUTTERFLIES LEPIDOPTERA DISTRIBUTION DATA SOURCES (LEPIDOPTERA) * Detailed distributional information has been J.D. Lafontaine published for only a few groups of Lepidoptera in western Biological Resources Program, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. Scott (1986) gives good distribution maps for Canada butterflies in North America but these are generalized shade Central Experimental Farm Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6 maps that give no detail within the Montane Cordillera Ecozone. A series of memoirs on the Inchworms (family and Geometridae) of Canada by McGuffin (1967, 1972, 1977, 1981, 1987) and Bolte (1990) cover about 3/4 of the Canadian J.T. Troubridge fauna and include dot maps for most species. A long term project on the “Forest Lepidoptera of Canada” resulted in a Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre (Agassiz) four volume series on Lepidoptera that feed on trees in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada and these also give dot maps for most species Box 1000, Agassiz, B.C. V0M 1A0 (McGugan, 1958; Prentice, 1962, 1963, 1965). Dot maps for three groups of Cutworm Moths (Family Noctuidae): the subfamily Plusiinae (Lafontaine and Poole, 1991), the subfamilies Cuculliinae and Psaphidinae (Poole, 1995), and ABSTRACT the tribe Noctuini (subfamily Noctuinae) (Lafontaine, 1998) have also been published. Most fascicles in The Moths of The Montane Cordillera Ecozone of British Columbia America North of Mexico series (e.g. Ferguson, 1971-72, and southwestern Alberta supports a diverse fauna with over 1978; Franclemont, 1973; Hodges, 1971, 1986; Lafontaine, 2,000 species of butterflies and moths (Order Lepidoptera) 1987; Munroe, 1972-74, 1976; Neunzig, 1986, 1990, 1997) recorded to date.
    [Show full text]
  • A Check List of the Lepidoptera of Fulton County, Ohio with Special Reference to the Moths of Goll Woods State Nature Preserve
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 24 Number 4 - Winter 1991 Number 4 - Winter Article 9 1991 December 1991 A Check List of the Lepidoptera of Fulton County, Ohio With Special Reference to the Moths of Goll Woods State Nature Preserve Roy W. Rings Ohio State University Eric H. Metzler Ohio Department of Natural Resources David K. Parshall Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Rings, Roy W.; Metzler, Eric H.; and Parshall, David K. 1991. "A Check List of the Lepidoptera of Fulton County, Ohio With Special Reference to the Moths of Goll Woods State Nature Preserve," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 24 (4) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol24/iss4/9 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Rings et al.: A Check List of the Lepidoptera of Fulton County, Ohio With Speci 1991 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST 265 A CHECK LIST OF THE LEPIDOPTERA OF FULTON COUNTY, OHIO WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE MOTHS OF GOLL WOODS STATE NATURE PRESERVE Roy W. Rings', Eric H. Metzler2 and David K. Parsha1l3 ABSTRACT The results of a comprehensive 1988-1989 survey of the Lepidoptera in the 130 hectare Goll Woods State Nature Preserve in Fulton County, Ohio are presented. In addition many records of butterflies and skippers outside the confines of the Pre­ serve are presented for the first time.
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)
    WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning Lessons About Lampreys Don Orth
    Learning Lessons about Lampreys Don Orth 11 American Currents Vol. 43, No. 3 LEARNING LESSONS ABOUT LAMPREYS Don Orth Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, Virginia Lampreys are simple fish that leave me with many ques- tiative emerged. Will the Pacific Lamprey ever recover? The tions. Lampreys and hagfishes are genetically very similar Lost Fish movie tells an all too familiar story (Freshwaters and represent the oldest living groups of vertebrates (Fig- Illustrated 2015) of the loss of important fish populations ure 1). These two lineages of Chordates arose well before the before scientists even have a chance to discover their distri- appearance of jawed fishes. Lampreys and hagfish persisted butions and uniqueness (Carim et al. 2017; Wade et al. 2018). through at least four of five mass extinction events on Earth. Joni Mitchell’s lyrics from “Big Yellow Taxi” seem appropri- How did they survive when most other marine organisms ate here. perished? What does their presence today indicate? “Don’t it always seem to go Studies of evolutionary history tell us that the appear- That you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone ance of the cranium, eyes, pineal gland, inner ear, olfactory They paved paradise rosettes, lateral line, large brain, and muscular heart, were And put up a parking lot” first evident in the lamprey. In fact, the body form of lam- A common genus of lampreys in eastern USA drainages preys is essentially the same as a 360 million-year-old fos- is Ichthyomyzon, which includes six species. Ichthyomyzon sil lamprey (Gess et al.
    [Show full text]